19 views

Uploaded by Anonymous rVWvjCRLG

In this paper three methods for estimating the parameters of the generalized Jelinski-Moranda (GJM)
model are compared. The needed mathematical formulas for resolving the estimates are derived.
Because of the lack of various real data with changed input data size different simulation scenarios are
given to help achieving our goals. Illustrative algorithms for the simulation studies are given. First, the
accuracy of the GJ-M model’s estimators is checked based on two evaluation criteria. Moreover, several
generated models from the GJ-M general formula are evaluated based on three different methods of
comparison. Useful results for the software reliability modelling area are concluded.

- Temp Sensor
- Matlab Levenberg M.
- Unscheduled Deferment
- Sufficient Statistics and Exponential Family
- Encoder GP1A038RBKL
- sensors-10-03655
- Maintenance Planning, Coordination, and Scheduling 76120.pdf
- Diodo Doble Panasonic RFUS20 430v 20A
- extremum_estimators_introduction
- Final Tech Report
- IPC2012-90039
- Umbrealla Sampling Monte Carlo MCMC
- 01388497
- The Method of Constant Stimuli is Efficient
- Least Squares
- Panel Lecture 01
- 2001wsc
- Errata 7
- US Federal Reserve: 200045pap
- CT2 Solution1

You are on page 1of 22

3, May 2016

FOR GENERALIZED JELINSKI-MORANDA MODEL

BASED ON VARIOUS SIMULATED PATTERNS

Lutfiah Ismail Al turk 1 and Eftekhar Gabel Alsolami2

lturk@kau.edu.sa ,ekalsuami@uj.edu.sa

1

2

ABSTRACT

In this paper three methods for estimating the parameters of the generalized Jelinski-Moranda (GJM)model are compared. The needed mathematical formulas for resolving the estimates are derived.

Because of the lack of various real data with changed input data size different simulation scenarios are

given to help achieving our goals. Illustrative algorithms for the simulation studies are given. First, the

accuracy of the GJ-M models estimators is checked based on two evaluation criteria. Moreover, several

generated models from the GJ-M general formula are evaluated based on three different methods of

comparison. Useful results for the software reliability modelling area are concluded.

KEYWORDS

Generalized Jelinski-Moranda (GJ-M) model, Simulations, Maximum likelihood estimation, Nonlinear

least squares estimation, Weighted nonlinear least squares estimation.

1. INTRODUCTION

The main interest of many costumers and developers is software reliability. Software reliability

model is a mathematical formula that describes the software failure process as a function of

factors, failure time and one of reliability measures. In fact, statistical modeling for quantifying

software reliability is a useful approach but before using this approach careful attention should be

paid to select the appropriate model that can best quantify and predict reliability. Selecting

inappropriate model can be considered as one of this approach limitations. In the ot her hand,

studying several models with different failure rate behavior among the huge numbers of proposed

reliability models during the last 45 years could help to avoid this limitation. The classical

Jelinski Moranda (J-M) model [ Jelinski and Moranda (1972)] is one of the most elementary

models, andit forms the basis of further software reliability models either as a modifications or as

an extensions. This model assumes that the failure rate is proportional to the number of remaining

faults and each fault contributes the same to the failure rate.The generalized Jelinski-Moranda

(GJ-M) model [Al turk and Alsolami (2016)] which also assumes that fault detection and

correction begins when a program contains N faults and all the faults have the same ratecould

offer several reliability sub-models with various failure rate behaviour based on its shape

parameter . Those generated sub-models could be checked for a given system with less effort

DOI: 10.5121/ijsea.2016.7303

27

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

and time, the J-M model is a special case of this general model when = 1. The purpose of this

paper is to study the accuracy of the GJ-M models three estimators using the maximum

likelihood (ML), nonlinear least squares (NLS), weighted nonlinear least squares

(WNLS)estimation methods. Another purpose is to compare several generated models as special

cases from the GJ-M model based also on those three chosen estimation methods. Two studies

based on several simulated Pattern are conducted to achieve our purposes. Generating various

simulated patterns will help us to study various situations that could not be offered by the limited

available real data sets. Moreover, simulating different size of failure time data will help to

investigate the changing in the input data size.

The rest of this paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 describes the MLE, NLSE, and WNLSE

approaches for the GJ-M model. Section 3 illustrates the evaluation criteria that will be used in

our evaluation. Simulation studies will be discussed in Sections 4. In the end, Section 5 is the

conclusion of this paper.

(GJ-M) MODEL

The GJ-M model which is suggested By Al turk and Alsolami in (2016) assumes that the amount

of debugging time between fault occurrences has a Weibull distribution. The faults rate is

proportional to the number of faults remaining multiplying by the term t , and each fault

discovered is immediately removed thus reducing the number of faults by one. According to these

assumptions, the probability density function (pdf) of the GJ-M is defined as follows:

f t = N i 1t

(1)

Where

i : is the fault index.

:is a proportionality constant.

N: is the number of initial faults present in system.

:is the shape parameter.

t : is the i time interval between detection of
i 1 and i faults.

R t = e

(2)

E t = MTTF t

(3)

28

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

var
t = E
t , -E
t .

=

' + 1(

,

N
i 1

0

%

0

%

1' 2(

10 ' 2(

0

, ' + 1(

N
i 1

0

1' 2(

10 ' 2(

0

(4)

More details and measures of reliability for the GJ-M model can be found in [Al turk and

Alsolami (2016)]

Parameter estimation is of primary importance in software reliability prediction. The maximum

likelihood estimation (MLE) method is the most important traditional and widely used estimation

technique. This technique has several properties including consistency, efficiency and asymptotic

normality. For the purpose of estimating the unknown three parameters N, , and of the GJ-M

model using MLE method and based on the failure time data set #t , t , , , t 5 ; n > 0$, the

likelihood function will be defined as follows:

L N, , = 5 5 5=N i 1t

e

(5)

To simplify the computation, the natural logarithm of both sides will be taken as follows:

5

=

5= ln t 5=N
i 1t

=

By taking the first partial derivative of Equation (6) with respect to , N and , we obtain:

@A
,,

@

BC
D,E,

BD

=?

5

N i 1t

=

1

=?

? t

N
i 1

=

(6)

=

29

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

BC
D,E,

B

n

= + ? lnt ?N
i 1t lnt

=

=

= 0, BC D,E,

= 0, and BC D,E,

= 0, the ML estimates of the GJ-M

BE

BD

B

models three parameters should satisfy the following equations:

G=

H

H

K%DI
I%J

5 H

K%

H

K%

5

+

(7)

= 5=

5= lnt =

(8)

5 H

K%

L5

H

K%

(9)

The nonlinear least squares NLS estimates are obtained by minimizing the following objective

function:

AN N, , =

5=t

%

2

%

2

,

(10)

Taking the first partial derivative of Equation (10), which assumes that each observation has an

equal weight, with respect to and N, and and equate the obtained equations to zero

D,E,

= 0, BPDCQB
D,E, = 0] we obtain:

[BPDCQBE
D,E, = 0, BPPDCQ

BD

G=

5=

R ' +

1( 5=

%

U%

2

5

0 S=

2

%

2

%

G

5=

2

2

Where V
z = X[ dt
lntt Y

e

U%

(11)

(12)

30

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

The NLS estimates of N and can be obtained by solving the Equations (12 and 13). Then by

substituting the obtained estimated values of N and into Equation (11), we get the NLS estimate

of.

As seen from Equation (4), the variance of the GJ-M model varies with the inter-failure time data,

accordingly using the WNLSE method may give more accurate estimates of the models

parameters. The WNLS estimates will be obtained by minimizing the following objective

function:

\AN N, , =

5= w t

%

2

%

2

,

(14)

Taking the first partial derivative of the above function with respect to , N and , and equate the

obtained equations to zero, we obtain Equations (15, 16 and 17):

G=

5=

R ' +

_

1( 5=

%

U%

2

_

5

0 S=

2

%

2

%

G

5=

_

%

0

d5=

1

V ` + 1a b?

=

G 2L5

2

_ L5

%

2

_

2

(15)

\AN
N, ,

=0

N

2

' 2(

\AN
N, ,

=0

U%

(16)

\AN
N, ,

=0

w t

N i + 1

%

' 2(

%

G

5=

%

' + 1(

%

?

=

G 2L5

2

_ L5

0

2

w

N i + 1

0

c=

(17)

31

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

Where V
z = X[ dt
lntt Y

e

Z

By solving the Equations (16 and 17) using Gauss-Newton method N

g

f

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

The mean of square errors (MSE), the root mean of square errors (RMSE), the mean absolute

errors (MAE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) criteria are used for the evaluation

purpose in our simulation studies. The lower the criteria value, the better performance we get.

The formulas of those criteria are shown in Table (1).

Table 1: Some evaluation criteria.

Criteria Name

MSE

[Zhanget al. (2003)].

MAPE

[Gentry et al. (1995)]

RMSE

[Chai and Draxler (2014)].

MAE

[Chai and Draxler (2014)].

Where

i : is thefault index.

yj : is the predicted value.

y :is the true value.

n: the sample size of the data

k: the number of parameters.

Criteria formula

5

1

?
y yj ,

nk

=

G

l

l

5= ` a

l

100%

1

o

?y yj ,

nk

=

1

? y yj

nk

=

32

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

4. SIMULATION STUDY

Simulation study was conducted to assess the performance of the GJ-M model under

different simulated patterns of software systems. A wide variety of situations were

generated by setting different values of the GJ-M models three parameters and various

sample sizes.In fact, our simulation is designed for two motivations: first to compare the

precision of the estimators; then to assess the performance of the different generated submodels of the GJ-M model, particularly, to focus on their performance for predicting

software reliability.

4.1 Simulation algorithms

Two simulation algorithms has been designed and coded in R programming language version

3.2.3 to help achieving our motivations:

Step 1: Generate 15, 30, 50, and 100 independent uniform U (0,1) random variables.

Step 2: For each sample size and using the following equation:

= 0.5, N = 150, and = 0.5, 1, 2.

= 0.5, N = 250, and = 0.5, 1, 2.

= 1.5, N = 150, and = 0.5, 1, 2.

= 1.5, N = 250, and = 0.5, 1, 2.

Step 3: Define initial values of the models parameters and use Equation (6) and package nlminb

to obtain the maximum likelihood (ML) estimates of parameters.

Step 4: Define initial values of the models parameters and use Equation (10) and package

minpack.lm to obtain nonlinear least square (NLS) estimates of parameters.

Step 5: Define initial values of the models parameters, set w = 1/i where i = 1, 2, , n and use

Equation (14) and package minpack.lm to obtain the weighted nonlinear least squares (WNLS)

estimates of parameters.

Step 6: Use the MSE and MAPE formulas in Table (1) to check the accuracy of (ML, NLS, and

WNLS) estimates.

Step 7: For each sample size in Step 1, (Step 1 to 6) will be repeated a large number of times

(5000 times in our simulation study) and the average of the parameters estimates and assessment

criteria will be computed.

%

Step 1:

Step 2:

Generate three simulated data sets with the following assumptions:

= 0.01 , N = 150 and = 3.5

= 0.01 , N = 150, = 5

= 0.01 , N = 150, = 8.5, and using the following equation:

33

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

t =
ln
uN
i 1

%

Step 3: Set [ = 0.01, N = 150, and = 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3] to generate six sub-models as

special cases of the GJ-M model.

Step 4: Estimate the generated models parameters based on MLE, NLSE, and NWLSE

estimation methods, to accomplish this step values of the models parameters are initialized, set

w = 1/i where i = 1, 2, , n, Equation (6, 10, and 14) will be used, and nlminb and minpack.lm

packages will be utilized.

Step 5: Select the best fit model among the six generated models based on three selection

methods MSE, RMSE, and AME using their mathematical formulas in Table (1).

The results of the simulation experiments are summarized in Tables (2, 3, 4, and 5), and will be

discussed in this section.

Part I: Studying and comparing the accuracy of the ML, NLS, WNLS estimates

Table (2) demonstrates the average values of the parameter estimates for the MLE, NLSE, and

WNLSE methods along with their average MSE and MAPE over the 5000 simulations, under

four simulated situations: [ = 0.5, N = 150, = 0.5, 1, 2], = 1.5, N = 150, = 0.5, 1, 2],

[ = 0.5, N = 250, = 0.5, 1, 2], and [ = 1.5, N = 250, = 0.5, 1, 2] with considering

different sample sizes [n = 15, 30, 50, and 100]. Each sub-table includes 12 comparison cases for

each of the three parameters.

In Table (2.a): 4 cases illustrate that the NLS estimates for the parameter perform the best and

are the closer to the true values, while 8 cases illustrate that the WNLSE method give the best

estimates values, none of the cases are for the sake of the MLE method. For the parameter N, 8

cases are for the sake of the NLS method, 5 cases are for the sake of WNLS, and again none of

the cases are for the sake of MLE methods. Regarding to the parameter , the NLSE and WNLSE

perform the same with approximately zero values of the average of the two evaluation criteria

while the MLE method has larger average values of the MSE and MAPE criteria Moreover, it

obvious that the average values of MSE and MAPE values in this table decreases as the sample

sizes increases.

For the simulated scenario in Table (2.b) we assumed the parameter which represents the

contribution by each failure in failure intensity to be greater than 1, for this scenario the NLSE

and WNLSE methods behave the same with a slight difference for the sake of WNLSE method

and again the MLE method takes the third rank. For the parameter N the best performance is from

the NLSE method while the WNLS and the MLE methods take the second and third rank

respectively and also there is no noticeably difference between the obtained results from the

NLSE and WNLSE methods. Lastly, the average values of the MSE and MAPE for seems to be

comparatively the same for NLSE and WNLSE methods and smaller than the MLE method. With

respect to assuming larger value in this pattern, this assumption gives smaller criteria values for

34

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

the estimates of the three parameters in most of the cases. Also, it is noticeable that the criteria

values decreases as the sample sizes increases.

While for on the simulation situation in Table (2.c),which assumed larger number of initial faults

present in system, the overall results show that the average values of the two evaluation criteria

tends to be the smallest for the NLSE method when estimating the parameters and N, and tends

to be the same with WNLSE when estimating the parameter . The MLE method has the larger

values of the average evaluation criteria for all cases. Moreover, assuming larger N value in this

pattern gives larger average values of the MSE and MAPE criteria. Also, if the sample size is

increased, the values of evaluation criteria are lower.

For the simulated pattern in Table (2.d) it is again as the results above, the NLS estimator seems

to perform better than the WNLS and ML estimators with respect to the average values of the

MSE and MAPE criteria for the parameters and N with a minor difference in the results of the

NLSE and WNLSE methods, but for the parameter the NLSE and WNLS behavethe same as

they have smaller MSE and MAPE than the MLE method, also for in this pattern by increasing

the sample size lower criteria values are obtained. According to the results in this part some

concluding points could be summarized as follows:

The overall results show that the average values of MSE and MAPE tends to get smaller

when the sample sizes increases so the larger the sample size the more information about

the failure process and more reliable results we have and this indicates the need for big

software reliability real data to make reliable release decisions.

The NLSE and WNLSE methods give more consistent estimate values than the MLE

method for all the three GJ-M models parameters under all our simulated patterns.

The results indicate that there is no major difference between the accuracy of the NLSE

and WNLSE methods, their average values of MSE and MAPE either close or the same

in most of our considered cases.

Assuming larger value of the failure rate contributed by each fault gives smaller average

values of MSE and MAPE in most of the selected cases. Maybe this indicates that

removing faults with larger contribution will give more enhancements to the accuracy of

the obtained estimates.

Assuming larger value of initial faults present in system gives larger average values of

MSE and MAPE in all the studied cases. Maybe this indicates that having greater start

number of faults in a given system will negatively affect the accuracy of its obtained

estimates.

Part II: Investigate the performance of some of the sub-models as special cases of the GJ-M

model

Tables (2, 3, and 4)present results of simulation numerical experiments to compare the

performance of the six special cases of the GJ-M model. The six sub-models were generated by

assuming: = 0.5, N = 150, = 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3]. For this comparison three data sets

were simulated by assuming = 0.5, N = 150 and the following assumptions for the shape

parameter for each data set: Data 1: = 3.5, Data 2: = 5.5, and Data 3: = 8. The estimates

were found by using the MLE, NLSE, and WNLSE methods. The performance of the models was

35

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

evaluated based on the MSE, RMSE, andAME criteria. According to the results in Tables (3, 4,

and 5) the following points are concluded:

According to our study, The ML estimates are unstable as they have big values of the

evaluation criteria compared to the true values while the NLE and WNLSE methods give

more accurate estimates.

In most of the cases, the best performance is obtained when using the WNLSE methods.

Model 6 is the best fit model for simulated Data (1, 2, and 3) using the three estimation

methods and based on to the MSE, RMSE, and AME criteria.

Table 2: The average values of ML, NLS, andWNLS estimates along with average MSE and

MAPE ofeach special case of the GJ-M Modelfrom 5000 simulations of sample sizes n =

(15,30,50, 100).

Table (2.a): Scenario 1; = 0.5, N = 150, and = 0.5, 1, 2.

Bold numbers indicates the best estimates accuracy.

36

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

37

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

(Table (2.a): Continued.)

38

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

(Table (2.b): Scenario 2; = 1.5, N = 150, and = 0.5, 1, 2

39

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

(Table (2.b): Continued).

40

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

(Table (2.c): Scenario 3: = 0.5, N = 250, and = 0.5, 1, 2.

41

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

Table (2.c): Continued

42

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

Table (2.d): Scenario 4: = 1.5, N = 250, and = 0.5, 1, 2

43

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

Table (2.d): Continued

44

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

Table 3: The MSE of six special cases of the G J-M model based on three simulated data sets.

45

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

Table 4: The RMSE of six special cases of the G J-M model based on three simulated data sets.

46

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

Table 5: The AME of six special cases of the G J-M model based on three simulated data sets.

Bold numbers indicates the best model performance.

5. CONCULDING REMARKS

The GJ-M model is a general formula of the very well-known Jelinski-Moranda model

(1972).This general formula can introduce different failure rate behavior sub-models to help suit

more different situations. In this paper, we have explored the performance of three method of

estimation for the GJ-M model through simulating many failure system scenarios. Furthermore,

we have investigated the performance of some of the sub-models as special cases of the GJ-M

model.We have made some conclusions and recommendations based on our simulation results:

The NLSE and WNLSE methods perform well, both of them give ecient and accurate

estimates in all our studied cases and we also see that they do better than the MLE

method.

47

International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.3, May 2016

method it has value to try more weight functions either optimal or empirical for more

enhancement of the performance of the WNLSE method.

Generating several sub-models of the GJ-M model increases the possibility of finding the

best fit model that suit several situations.

It is worth to consider the WNLSE method with the reliability models considering that

they have non-constant variance with testing time.

REFERENCES

[1]

Chai, T., and Draxler, R. ,Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?

Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature, Geoscientific Model Development. 7, 12471250. doi:10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014.

[2]

Traditional Forecasting Techniques and Neural Networks", presented at ANNIE'95 - Artificial Neural

Networks in Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, November 12-15, 1995; also in Intelligent

Engineering Systems Through Artificial Neural Networks vol 5, pp. 765-760, ed. C. H. Dagli,

M. Akay, C. L. P Chen, B. R. Fernandez, J. Gosh, ASME PRESS, New York 1995.

[3]

evaluation (Edited by W. Freiberger), Academic Press, New York,(1972), pp. 465-497.

[4]

Liu J., Liu Y., Xu M., Parameter Estimation of Jelinski-Moranda Model Based on Weighted

Nonlinear Least Squares and Heteroscedasticity, arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00094, 2015, pp.1-17

[5]

Lutfiah Ismail Al turk andEftekhar Gabel Alsolami, Jelinski-Moranda, Software Reliability Growth

Model: A Brief Literature and Modification, International Journal of Software Engineering and

Applications (IJSEA), Vol.7, No.2, March 2016, pp.33-44.

[6]

Zhang, X., Teng, X. and Pham, H., Considering Fault Removal Efficiency in Software Reliability

Assessment, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-part A, Vol.33, No.1, 2003; 114120.

AUTHOR

Lutfiah Ismail Al turkis currently working as Associate Professor of Mathematical Statistics in Statistics

Department at Faculty of Sciences, King AbdulAziz University, Saudi Arabia. Lutfiah Ismail Al turk

obtained her B.Sc degree in Statistics and Computer Science from Faculty of Sciences, King AbdulAziz

University in 1993 and M.Sc (Mathematical statistics) degree from Statistics Department, Faculty of

Sciences, King AbdulAziz University in 1999. She received her Ph.D in Mathematical Statistics from

university of Surrey, UK in 2007. Her current research interests include Software reliability modeling

and Statistical Machine Learning.

Eftekhar Gabel Alsolami is presently Teaching Assistant in Mathematics Department at Faculty of

Sciences, University of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Eftekhar Gabel Alsolami obtained her B.Sc degree in

Statistics from Faculty of Sciences, King AbdulAziz University in 2011.

48

- Temp SensorUploaded byrohitkush
- Matlab Levenberg M.Uploaded byelmayi385
- Unscheduled DefermentUploaded bymohammadazrai
- Sufficient Statistics and Exponential FamilyUploaded byuser31415
- Encoder GP1A038RBKLUploaded bymeho
- sensors-10-03655Uploaded byHussain Rizvi
- Maintenance Planning, Coordination, and Scheduling 76120.pdfUploaded bykshalawi
- Diodo Doble Panasonic RFUS20 430v 20AUploaded byAntonio Chavez
- extremum_estimators_introductionUploaded byVictor Haselmann Arakawa
- Final Tech ReportUploaded byamulya_manchester
- IPC2012-90039Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Umbrealla Sampling Monte Carlo MCMCUploaded byvkk106
- 01388497Uploaded byapi-3697505
- The Method of Constant Stimuli is EfficientUploaded byjoaomartinelli
- Least SquaresUploaded byhraiserdias
- Panel Lecture 01Uploaded byApam Benjamin
- 2001wscUploaded byDark Grave
- Errata 7Uploaded bynemrasp
- US Federal Reserve: 200045papUploaded byThe Fed
- CT2 Solution1Uploaded byRewa Shankar
- Loss of Load Probability of a Power SystemUploaded byAnkit Bishnoi
- paper5Uploaded bykhalid
- wp10-7Uploaded byorintruder
- CMMS Data Group Welcomes Bill Mountjoy as Vice President of Reliability EngineeringUploaded byPR.com
- 2SC3328Uploaded byanon_930315615
- lmUploaded byRosendo Parra Milian
- 19 References.pdfUploaded byRohit Rangari
- TD62064AFGUploaded byroberto
- Reliability Job DescriptionsUploaded byTarun Taisum
- ReadmeUploaded bySimamora Samuel Hansen

- Investigating Game Developers’ Guilt Emotions Using Sentiment AnalysisUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- A Literature Survey of Cognitive Complexity Metrics for Statechart DiagramsUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- Introducing Refined Agile Model (RAM) in the Context of Bangladesh'S Software Development Environment Concentrating on the Improvement of Requirement Engineering ProcessUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- Analysis of Gamification Elements to Explore Misinformation Sharing Based on U&G Theory: A Software Engineering PerspectiveUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- Securing Software Development Stages Using Aspect-Orientation ConceptsUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA)Uploaded byAdam Hansen
- International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA)Uploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA)- ERA IndexedUploaded byijujournal
- IJCSITYUploaded byAnonymous F1whTR
- DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A WEB-BASED RECYCLING SYSTEM FOR PROTECTING THE GREEN ENVIRONMENTUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- HOLISTIC EVALUATION OF XML QUERIES WITH STRUCTURAL PREFERENCES ON AN ANNOTATED STRONG DATAGUIDEUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- A SURVEY OF CASCADING STYLE SHEETS COMPLEXITY METRICSUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- SOFTWARE REQUIREMENT CHANGE EFFORT ESTIMATION MODEL PROTOTYPE TOOL FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PHASEUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA)Uploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- AGILE PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN NON-SOFTWARE SECTORS DURING TURBULENT TIMESUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- APPLYING CONTINUOUS INTEGRATION FOR INCREASING THE MAINTENANCE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF WEB APPUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- AN ITERATIVE HYBRID AGILE METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING ARCHIVING SYSTEMSUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- A RELIABLE AND AN EFFICIENT WEB TESTING SYSTEMUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- International Journal of Advanced Information Technology (IJAIT)Uploaded byAnonymous nSOMdw
- Empirically Validated Simplicity Evaluation Model for Object Oriented SoftwareUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- Generic Modelling Using Uml Extensions for Queens Challenge Puzzle Game From 1 to 25 Levels SystemUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- A Novel Effort Estimation Model for Software Requirement Changes During Software Development PhaseUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG
- A Formal Method for Mapping Software Engineering Practices to EssenceUploaded byAnonymous rVWvjCRLG

- 2008 M 27 Wright CorrigendaUploaded byAnghelo Alcalde
- Levenberg Marquardt MethodUploaded byIotalaseria Putu
- Kirkup - Principles and Applications of Non-Linear Least Squares - An Introduction for Physical Scientists Using Excel Solver (2003)Uploaded bypieropol
- lmUploaded byLeonora C. Ford
- indxUploaded bymasterrk
- Discrete Modelling and Experimental Data.pdfUploaded byAmrYassin
- 130322_cziraky.pdfUploaded byLui
- Options Pricing ModelUploaded byLoriet Nduna
- Scientific ComputatioUploaded byc_mc2
- CES Estimation PackagesUploaded byHijab Syed
- affine.pdfUploaded byKabibKun
- chap06_8up- OptimizationUploaded byagcore
- Bloom Berg] Volatility CubeUploaded byAna Molina
- IMSL Fortran Library User Guide 2.pdfUploaded byAshoka Vanjare
- Developers 6.0Developers Guide for Dakota 6.0Uploaded byAlexandre Pereira
- Scilab_Optimization_201109Uploaded byYusuf Haqiqzai
- DAKOTA Reference 4.0.pdfUploaded byfran01334
- Option Pricing Models With Jumps --- Integro-Differential Equations and Inverse Problems-2004Uploaded byhichkas1981
- Developers-6.3.0Uploaded byPhong Nguyen
- Principles of Statistical InferenceUploaded byEdmundo Caetano
- Least-Squares Fitting of Circles and EllipsesUploaded byHarryadi Novry
- The Levenberg-Marquardt Method for Nonlinear Least Squares Curve-fitting ProblemsUploaded bybooksreader1
- 2354-hasjdUploaded bycamilx
- Transformer ModelUploaded bymspd2003
- Optimization Toolbox MatlabUploaded byJermaine Ricketts
- Fitting hyperelastic models to experimental data"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved</TITLE> <STYLE type="text/css"><!--BODY{background-color:#ffffff;font-family:verdana,sans-serif}PRE{font-family:sans-serif}--></STYLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>ERROR</H1> <H2>The requested URL could not be retrieved</H2> <HR noshade size="1px"> <P> While trying to process the request: <PRE> TEXT http://www.scribd.com/titlecleaner?title=Fitting+hyperelastic+models+to+experimental+data.pdf HTTP/1.1 Host: www.scribd.com Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Referer: http://www.scribd.com/upload-document?archive_doc=123752599&metadata=%7B%22platform%22%3A%22web%22%2C%22page%22%3A%22read%22%2C%22action%22%3A%22download_promo%22%2C%22logged_in%22%3Afalse%2C%22context%22%3A%22archive_view_restricted%22%7D Origin: http://www.scribd.com X-CSRF-Token: 17f6aa10b990325eUploaded bykrish
- Advanced Scientific Computing in Basic With Applications in Chemistry, Biology and PharmacologyUploaded byababakhanov
- sim_ext_sysUploaded byBhalchandra Murari
- Principles of Statistical InferenceUploaded bymuhammadshoaib88
- Testing Unconstrained Optimization Software - Moré, Garbow and HillstromUploaded byAlisson Lucas de Souza